Buried knife found at OJ's estate

I was always under the impression that OJ got rid of the knife in Chicago.
 
I'm so surprised this didn't happen a fortnight before the FX show. Sure it's probably propaganda but it's still a bit odd that this is found half way through the show.
 
jgarner said:
Well he probably assumed that it didn't matter considering OJ was already found not guilty for the murders. So even if they found OJ's prints on it and Nicole & Ron's blood, they couldn't use it as evidence for anything.

It's really amazing to me that OJ got off from that murder. When you sit down and look at all the physical evidence in the case, and the fact that people literally saw him leaving the scene in his Bronco, it's flabbergasting that he got off because of one racist cop.

He had a cut on his left hand. There was a trail of blood on the left side of bloody footprints. The footprints were of a rare, and super expensive shoe, that he wore and in the exact same size. The bloody glove found was left handed, the same hand he cut. The other glove was found at OJ's house for fucks sake. There was literally a blood trail that goes from the crime scene, to the Bronco, and back up to OJ's house. But because one cop was racist, he is innocent?
Click to expand...
Im not understanding how a defendant can get a new trial in cases where new evidence is found but youre all saying they cant charge someone again even if they find new and damning evidence against someone...IF they have already been tried and found innocent? that doesnt seem like justice to me
 
second sight said:
I'm being lazy here but it says he can't be prosecuted because of double jeopardy, he wasn't convicted the first time, how is that double jeopardy?
Click to expand...

Wow
 
Skarr said:
Im not understanding how a defendant can get a new trial in cases where new evidence is found but youre all saying they cant charge someone again even if they find new and damning evidence against someone...IF they have already been tried and found innocent? that doesnt seem like justice to me
Click to expand...

It's not justice. It's the law. The two are often different.
 
Skarr said:
Im not understanding how a defendant can get a new trial in cases where new evidence is found but youre all saying they cant charge someone again even if they find new and damning evidence against someone...IF they have already been tried and found innocent? that doesnt seem like justice to me
Click to expand...

Because its far worse to find an innocent guilty than find a guilty innocent?

Also the second one is ripe for abuse, prosecutors would simply charge anyone on any evidence knowing they can do it again and again until they get what they want.
 
Between chain of custody and double jeopardy issues, who cares? Even if this evidence provided conclusive proof against OJ, everyone's made up their minds already one way or another.
 
Burying the knife on your own property???? Wtf???

That's a rookie move for sure, I mean Srs. Burn it in a fire and smash the red hot metal up with a hammer or I don't know....drop it in a few hundred feet of water seeing as hownhenlifes in Cali.

What the fuck, burying it on your property....
 
Skarr said:
Im not understanding how a defendant can get a new trial in cases where new evidence is found but youre all saying they cant charge someone again even if they find new and damning evidence against someone...IF they have already been tried and found innocent? that doesnt seem like justice to me
Click to expand...
Once you take it to trial you only get one shot. After OJ was declared not guilty, they could have found the knife with his DNA and a video of him doing it and nothing could happen. He could go on CNN today and admit to the murders, and no more charges can be brought forth against him.

It's an important part of our justice system to keep the state from constantly harassing a citizen. The prosecutor can't just keep filing different charges until he gets a conviction. It seems fucked up in OJ's case, but it's there to keep the state in check. I would rather 1 murderer go free than 1 innocent person get convicted by an overzealous prosecutor.
 
jgarner said:
Well he probably assumed that it didn't matter considering OJ was already found not guilty for the murders. So even if they found OJ's prints on it and Nicole & Ron's blood, they couldn't use it as evidence for anything.

It's really amazing to me that OJ got off from that murder. When you sit down and look at all the physical evidence in the case, and the fact that people literally saw him leaving the scene in his Bronco, it's flabbergasting that he got off because of one racist cop.

He had a cut on his left hand. There was a trail of blood on the left side of bloody footprints. The footprints were of a rare, and super expensive shoe, that he wore and in the exact same size. The bloody glove found was left handed, the same hand he cut. The other glove was found at OJ's house for fucks sake. There was literally a blood trail that goes from the crime scene, to the Bronco, and back up to OJ's house. But because one cop was racist, he is innocent?
Click to expand...

You didn't follow the trial did you? With the evidence, the way it was collected, handled and presented, the jury came to the only verdict that they could.
 
The latest headlines I was seeing indicated that it's one big fat disappointment, and the knife wasn't involved in the murders.

Thanks, Obama.
 
OJ is safe from prosecution, BUT if they can show that someone else helped him hide the knife than they could be charged with accessory to murder after the fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,255,782
Messages
56,738,397
Members
175,382
Latest member
LaPalmaJoa

Share this page

Back
Top